Mary Jane Jacob in relation to Miwon Kwan

“These artists eschew the constricting limitations not only of artistic conventions but of the traditional institutional spaces of their production, such as studios, museums and galleries.” -- page 106-107

Mary Jane Jacob focussed the beginning part of her lecture on “making space.” This space she refers to deals with the location and setting of the art work. It contributes to the viewer’s overall art experience, which Jacob finds particularly thought-provoking. She asserted that museums are considered conventional spaces, or more specifically, gatekeepers. Since an art piece or installation resides in such an institutional space, a museum’s own identity is thus reflected in the art it features. According to Jacob, museums reflect cultural status, and a museum’s own interests might be placed before those of the art piece. This factor causes one to ask, “who is the show actually for?” One of Jacob’s primary goals is to eliminate the middle man-- in this case-- the museum. By doing so, there is no buffer zone between art and the people; there is pure, natural interaction between the two entities. Both the viewer and the artist must start with art at the raw, forcing both parties to find a safe space for the art. The people and the art must coexist and make conversational with one another for such dialogic art to be successful.

Adrian Piper's Funk Lessons

Sources:
Title: Mapping Mindsets
from Art Papers, Volume 28, no. 5 (sept/oct 2004)

Title: Adrian Piper: A canvas of concerns- Race, Racism and Class
from The New York Times

Title: Adrian Piper
from Artforum International, Oct. 2002

Title: Adrian Piper
from New York Times, Jan. 12, 2002

Title: Warhol Museum illustrates Piper's lure
from Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, Apr. 26, 2001

Title: A traveling exhibit on the 30-year old youth culture explosion lends street cred to the mainstream art world
from Star Tribune, July 12, 2002



Questions:
1. In what ways can modern day citizens of all colors and ethnicities use Piper's Funk Lessons to bridge racial gaps still prevelant in our culture today?
2. How do members of society act in terms of responding to Piper's project (and those like it) that either advance or hinder her mission to enhance inter-racial communication?

A close look at the bottom surface of the lake near the shore.


A goose skims the waters of Onondaga Lake on a brisk, drizzly fall day.



This is a glance down the shoreline of Onondaga Lake from the historic park. This is
certainly a majestic image to capture the beauty of upstate New York in autumn; however,
it contrasts greatly with the dark horrors that lie beneath the surface of the lake.

Piss Christ

Piss Christ
Serrano

Video and Resistance

This article primarily warns viewers against accepting documentary film as truth. While documentaries act as a means of communication, a specific narration created the by the documentary creators eliminates the opportunity for personal interpretation. Documentaries create a causality between each frame and the succeeding one, thereby legitimizing the film while making it interesting for the viewers. This creates a pre-packaged, biased view, falsifying what the piece deems as “absolute truth.” In comparison to Sontag, this article views documentary as a manipulative form of art, whereas Sontag believes photography inaccurately replaces reality through a warped, subjective lens.

Funding Onondaga Lake Clean-up

As a result of factories, mines, military bases and other pollutant sources of the like, a federal program called Superfund was developed in 1980 as a program that would pay nearly $1 billion per year towards cleaning toxic areas of the environment. Now, Superfund is bankrupt. Although Superfund intends to continue in its mission to clean-up toxic areas, the question remains as to how the federal program can afford these extensive projects. Thus, when Onondaga Lake, the nation’s most polluted lake, was added to the Superfund priority list in 1994 (Landers 65), the $380 million, 15-year plan to clean the water was deemed “the most expensive public works project in county history” (Weiner B1). With the Superfund trust now empty, the burden has been placed upon taxpayers instead of the companies at fault. Yet with most of the attention devoted to determining who will actually fund this project, scientists have carelessly misinterpreted data about the lake and its toxins. This illustrates that in order for the lake to be successfully cleaned, the government must decide exactly who will be responsible for the bill so that de-polluting Onondaga Lake can be its first, and only, priority. Moreover, the financial obligation should not be placed upon the taxpayers of Onondaga County, as they could not prevent the factories’ pollution; instead, the factories and other lead pollutant contributors should take responsibility and pay the remainder of the bill of which Superfund cannot afford.
According to Reporter Mark Weiner of the Post Standard, flawed scientists’ reviews of the lake pose long-term risks, one being a multiple decade long battle trying to de-pollute Onodaga Lake (Weiner B1). Because the analysis until 2001 was flawed, Superfund scientists needed to re-evaluate the lake’s progress and status. More specifically, scientists over-estimated the amount of phosphorous entering the lake (Weiner B1), thus also miscalculating the amount of phosphorous entering from the sewage treatment plant. Simply, phosphorous, when present in water, promotes the growth of algae (Weiner B1), causing a poor odor and uninhabitable environment for fish and other creatures. Because phosphorous is one of the lead causes of the pollution, one wonders how such a necessary detail could be overlooked by professionals. Although the scientists themselves are not responsible for funding the project, perhaps their superiors were too busy focussing on the financial aspect as opposed to insuring scientific data was correct. Mistaking the phosphorous amounts in Onondaga Lake will ironically cost Superfund even more money, as scientists must return to the beginning and re-evaluate their calculations. Had Superfund and the federal government been more aware of the hands-on research being conducted on a daily basis, perhaps their would be no flawed records.
One step towards eliminating this confusion includes deciding exactly who will pay for Superfund projects. In the past, the source of such pollution was required to finance these clean-up sites. Recently, however, owners of the companies polluting the environment have gone bankrupt and therefore, cannot afford to pay for the massive clean-up. With the Superfund trust continually shrinking, the burden has been placed upon taxpayers of the given community. However, taxpayers, who essentially are not at fault for such polluted areas, should not have to bare the burden and pay out-of-pocket for a factory’s environmentally harmful actions. According to Onondaga County, the main contributers to the lake’s pollution include the Solvay Process Company Facility and its succeeder Honeywell Incorporated. Even though the Syracuse Metropolitan Wastewater Plant (Metro) was created to upgrade the sewage treatment, the lake “still does not meet water quality standards” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). In fact, Metro “is currently the lake’s main phosphorous and ammonia contributor” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Once again, the Onondaga Lake clean-up makes little, if any, progress. Metro, similar to the scientists, aims to fight against pollution, yet ironically makes the situation worse. Moreover, with the project now currently estimated at $380 million, it makes little sense that Metro should deflect the payments onto taxpayers. There is no logical reason for taxpayers to finance the clean-up project when Metro, unlike other factories in the past, is not bankrupt. Moreover, since it is not the fault of Onondaga residents, it is not their responsibility to spend their hard-earned money on factories’ careless disposal of pollutants into a water source.
Some may argue that the lake is part of Onondaga County, therefore county residents are decidedly responsible for the clean-up, despite whether they were the source of the lake’s toxins. However, by defaulting payments to taxpayers, the county hurts its own real estate value. For one, contractors and other urban developers, who would bring more housing (and therefore revenue) to the area, are discouraged from building in Onondaga County. Primarily, they are fearful that as taxpayers, they will need to contribute to the funds necessary to clean the lake. Thus, such a high property tax makes developers less willing to invest in land owned by Onondaga County. Those who believe taxpayers should finance the project might argue that Metro and Honeywell should not hold the sole responsibility for cleaning the water source, as they were not the only causes of such pollution. Moreover, these companies have no incentive to clean the lake, while the taxpayers are the primary advocates who will benefit from the clean-up. This perspective fails to recognize that Metro and Honeywell’s personal interest play no factor in this debate; Onondaga residents ultimately had no control over toxins entering the lake, while these factories could have prevented phosphorous contamination.
Even though taxpayers are inevitably more concerned about the pollution in comparison to the factories, residents of Onondaga County should not fund Onondaga Lake’s clean-up project. Because there is no clear benefactor, confusion inevitably erupts, leading to scientific miscalculations that cost even more money than originally expected. The federal government should appoint the party who will ultimately join Superfund in financing the de-pollution of the lake so that a more efficient clean-up process can get underway. With a secure benefactor in place, Onondaga Lake will quickly restore itself so it is no longer considered the most polluted lake in the county.

CSM Article- Superfund

As a result of factories, mines, military bases and other pollutant sources of the like, a federal program called Superfund was developed in 1980. When originally founded, the program paid nearly $1 billion per year towards cleaning toxic areas of the environment; yet now, Superfund is nearly bankrupt. The number of sites cleaned-up annually has primarily declined because sites are so large and polluted, the cost is too immense. Superfund now questions where it will get its financing from, as in the past, the source of such pollution was required to pay. Recently, however, owners of these companies have gone bankrupt and therefore, cannot afford to pay for the massive clean-up. With the Superfund trust continually shrinking, the burden has been placed upon taxpayers of the given community. Another ill effect of these large projects includes the discouragement of potential urban developers, as when they look into purchasing a piece of polluted land, buyers learn they might carry the burden of paying for the project. Although Superfund intends to continue in its mission to clean-up toxic areas, the question remains as to how the federal program can afford these extensive projects.


Additional Article